The Hon. Anura Karunathilaka - Minister of Ports and Civil Aviation

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, we are discussing education reforms. It was stated that we opposed previous reforms for political reasons and that our Prime Minister did not sign NEP. Yes—we opposed many past proposals because they aimed to weaken public education and shift the burden onto parents, paving the way for privatization. That is why our Prime Minister opposed NEP in the Sectoral Oversight Committee and did not sign it, alongside a majority of education stakeholders—university academics and many teachers—who also opposed it, which forced the then Government to withdraw.

¶ 02 A previous speaker seems to think the Constitutional Council must oppose everything the Government brings. That is not its role. Members must consider proposals on merit, regardless of who brings them. We recently saw attempts to pressure CC members; we must be more responsible.

¶ 03 These reforms have a history. Some say they appeared suddenly. The need for reform has been discussed for decades. Around 2010–2012, university academics initiated discussions joined by unions, civil society and progressive political parties. By 2018, almost all political parties, each through their own ideological lens, brought proposals—liberal parties arguing for liberalization; progressives arguing to strengthen public education and ease burdens on children and parents. In that context, the current proposals are a transformative process that can change general education in Sri Lanka.

¶ 04 There is much misinformation. The Opposition Leader repeatedly claims “it’s only a PowerPoint.” I have with me the Ministry’s published document “A Transformative Change in Sri Lanka’s General Education,” available on the Ministry website in three languages. It sets out background, vision, targets and objectives, understanding of reforms, rationale, and the key components of the transformation. Presentations summarizing content do not mean there is no substance.

¶ 05 The national education goals listed include: responding to local and global challenges while safeguarding cultural and environmental heritage; fostering mindful and self-aware learners who learn how to learn; and nurturing patriotic Sri Lankan citizens who, respecting cultural diversity, foster national cohesion, integrity and unity.

¶ 06 Some allege we seek an ultra-liberal citizen divorced from national culture. I invite them to read the national goals in this publication. Apart from the issue in the English module, identify any other module already published that contains such alleged problems. Those two pages were gravely wrong—we accept it. Those responsible must be disciplined after due process, and it must be corrected. But to reduce the entire process to those two pages and claim we are undermining culture is wrong. If the Opposition showed genuine shortcomings and joined a constructive dialogue—identifying errors, ensuring they don’t recur—there would be no issue. The problem is the attempt to trivialize and derail the whole process with a single theme.

¶ 07 Some say we lack infrastructure to implement. Regrettably, due to decades of underfunding, our schools lack adequate facilities to deliver quality education. Hence we have allocated about Rs. 17 billion this year to improve infrastructure. But saying “complete all infrastructure in 10,126 schools first, then start reforms” is impractical. We must proceed in parallel: not just curricular change, but developing human resources in quantity and quality; improving school-level infrastructure and classroom facilities; and aligning assessment with activity-based, student-centered approaches that reduce the burden of exam-centric rote learning.

¶ 08 That is the essence of these reforms.